this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
485 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

76041 readers
2564 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What are the chances this will lead to online data privacy reform and corporate accountability for PII for all? or just...some?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Would you care to describe how you would implement said system? Because I can't see how that would work technologically

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I intentionally was vague because there are many possible existing ways to accomplish each thing I said, and it is up to the phone company to innovate.

The simplest way to keep people from guessing phone numbers is to make them very long and sparse. If an autodialer had to dial 1000 invalid numbers before finding a valid number, it would make the endeavor that much harder. This is just a convenient example because the cryptography equivalent is harder to explain, but you could make contact info so hard to guess that it would be basically impossible.

Probably the easiest way to explain how to keep people from passing contact info is to imagine a two step process like facebook has. If I pass your facebook username to someone else, they don't automatically become your friend. The cryptographic equivalent would involve a chain of trust, but again, harder to explain.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I love cryptography! Technical explanation please.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 22 hours ago

Literally just use existing standards (STIR/STUN) with some filtering by source network, etc

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Still not seeing how it would work. You're dropping random bits of the system and saying it would work but it's too complicated for you to explain, so there's really nothing to discuss.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

not op but signal has basically solved this. users are not just randomly accessible by anyone. they can share a long URL that contains an ID, or make a short username they like and pass around to people. and even then the recipient has to accept being contacted by each other user

true that signal now relies on the phone number system for trust and safety, but that's not core to how signal works, it could be replaced if they really wanted.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

At that point, you (well, not you per se) are basically suggesting to replace the telephone system with a Signal-esque system. Which would break a billion things in real life, for little to no gain.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago

any change would break a billion things in real life, so we could at least have a proper replacement.

the problem with signal here is that it's centralized, probably couldn't even handle the load besides other problems. but that's solvable, like look at simplex which is similar